Yes, the death of the "young black girl" didn't really make me feel too much either to be honest. I thought it was quite cheesy really but then again, I thought the whole film was a bit like that. A complete Battle Royale rip-off, or as Spaldy said somewhere, it's "Battle Royale "Lite"!.

Thought the same myself.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

ORIGINAL: Deviation But if you understand the logic, why don't you buy it? Did you want her to go kill and brutally murder people like that girl in Battle Royale just for the sake of spectacle? That would have been idiotic.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the mechanics of the film. There was nothing to stop Ross from taking the camera away from Katniss in an attempt to build upon the momentum created. Excusing the story for one moment completely, I think that would have made for a far more dramatic payoff. I realise that The Hunger Games is Katniss's story (in the books), but that doesn't stop Ross from delving in to other areas literally disconnected from her at other times (the control room, Donald Sutherland's garden, Steven Soderbergh's riots etc)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation Fair enough on the shocking bit, the bolded bit is not liking the execution from the start though, like saying Battle Royale is predictable because you expected most of the students to still die in the first place.

The most typical premise can be appreciated if executed well, I have no problem with that. I knew what was going to happen at the end of Captain America, but I still enjoyed it. (By and large) I know that the premise dictates what must happen at the end of any historical drama, with the success of said premise on-screen lying at the behest of the production. Premise isn't an issue as such, its the manner in which it's put across by the filmmaker. For me the execution of the first act of The Hunger Games was fine: it presented an interesting world in an interesting manner. The premise is pretty much an aside during those moments. It was the execution of the games bit which did the premise a disservice, in that it held no real surprises.

quote:

Nah, that made sense with the tone and perception of the film. Tresh was mentioned in the film, the characters were constantly spying on each other to see who made the first move and he seemed fond of Rue, him being around at that time made sense. Anyone who died needed to be close to Katniss to be affected. It was also rather ruthless, inglorious and cruel to kill him off screen like nothing happened, which was perfect for the film.

I disagree. It simply encouraged those that might deem his sudden appearance out of nowhere to be far too convenient in terms of hurdling over the films biggest threat to the protagonist. From my perspective all it said was "don't worry about bad shit happening to Katniss, someone who you've never seen before and never will see again will jump out of the woods and save our heroine". Killing him off-screen served only to reinforce his status as unbelievably convenient deus-ex-machina.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the mechanics of the film. There was nothing to stop Ross from taking the camera away from Katniss in an attempt to build upon the momentum created. Excusing the story for one moment completely, I think that would have made for a far more dramatic payoff. I realise that The Hunger Games is Katniss's story (in the books), but that doesn't stop Ross from delving in to other areas literally disconnected from her at other times (the control room, Donald Sutherland's garden, Steven Soderbergh's riots etc)

But even those were direct reactions to what Katniss was doing. One was an attack on her, the other consisted mostly of discussions about her and they should do about her, and the riots were a reaction to what she had done. It's still around Katniss whole and through. Taking those away would have also taken out what influence Katniss' actions were having on the nature of the game. Going from anything other than that would have been a distraction from what was primarily Katniss' journey.

quote:

The most typical premise can be appreciated if executed well, I have no problem with that. I knew what was going to happen at the end of Captain America, but I still enjoyed it. (By and large) I know that the premise dictates what must happen at the end of any historical drama, with the success of said premise on-screen lying at the behest of the production. Premise isn't an issue as such, its the manner in which it's put across by the filmmaker. For me the execution of the first act of The Hunger Games was fine: it presented an interesting world in an interesting manner. The premise is pretty much an aside during those moments. It was the execution of the games bit which did the premise a disservice, in that it held no real surprises.

See, while I enjoyed Captain America I did not find the second half very entertaining though for this very reason, Red Skull felt like an incredibly inept villain who never won one single battle. Katniss on the other hand had some very real danger going on where she was harmed and had the potential of causing her dearth. Obviously, it wasn't going to happen, but I did get the impression that she was in constant danger against much stronger, better equipped and capable foes and even failed to defend a person she held dear. CA won most of Europe against Red Skull easily, not once was Red Skull a real threat. Katniss faced threats that felt real.

quote:

I disagree. It simply encouraged those that might deem his sudden appearance out of nowhere to be far too convenient in terms of hurdling over the films biggest threat to the protagonist. From my perspective all it said was "don't worry about bad shit happening to Katniss, someone who you've never seen before and never will see again will jump out of the woods and save our heroine". Killing him off-screen served only to reinforce his status as unbelievably convenient deus-ex-machina.

It was hardly felt as if he just appeared there. There were other characters who were spying on each other to see who would do the first. That Tresh was just waiting for something to happen to get the reinforcements and than overheard the discussion and acted that way was nothing strange. The strange odd bit was actually when Clove gave her that speech about Rue (I'm not even sure how she could have known what happened to Rue), which seemed to come out of nowhere instead of rapidly killing Katniss when she had the chance. Tresh doing what he did was nothing bizarre and neither was him being there, it was not a new sudden event that came out of the blue (other than that speech which seemed to exist only to anger Tresh), it something that had already chance of happening. His death also followed a rather cruel strain in the film. Instead of killing the character in a rather, shall we say, noble way by showing his death or at least a fight, they just killed off screen making his death feel no less worthy than of those others who had died off screen. He was as expandable as the rest. It would have also revealed the dogs.

But hey, opinions, assholes, you know the drill...

< Message edited by Deviation -- 13/4/2012 9:10:09 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

When a film mentions its own title almost every minute it is never a good sign and The Hunger Games was no exception. The lack initiative or common sense used by the majority of the characters throughout the games is heavily frustrating – look out for the tree scene or a scene with Rue. Many characters are introduced and then forgotten, which can only be preparation for a sequel, a flaw that The Lord of the Rings trilogy managed to avoid. All in all The Hunger Games was an enjoyable watch with many avoidable flaws. Perhaps its sequel will be more entertaining…

I first saw The Hunger Games on the wrong side of 6 pints and a couple of Red Bulls so my head wasn't as clear as it ought to have been so I decided to see it again before I could make a proper judgement. Turns out I though the same the second time out. It's good but it could have been so much better.

Gary Ross does a good job of creating the world of Panem its people. He also manages to capture the mayhem and confusion of the start of the Games themselves. He also peppers the film with a lot of satire and political allegory. The main problem is that the film is perhaps a little too faithful to the structure of the book. Its first person, present tense narrative puts you very much in Katniss' head and you experience the Games as she does. Thing is that this doesn't really work on film. Most of the Tributes' deaths are"offscreen" which works fine on paper but doesn't really translate to the screen. Ross does cut away from Katniss's perspective on several occasions to show the behind the scenes workings of the Games amongst other things. I think that the film would have benefited from being widened further. If we had seen more of the other Tributes their fates may have had more impact. Also in ending in the same "end of part one" manner it's not as satisfying as it could have been but that was always going to be the case

The focus on Katniss puts a hell of a lot of pressure on Jennifer Lawrence and thankfully she's more than up to the task. She's brilliant in the role easily projecting steel and determination but also tenderness, vulnerability and heartbreak. She genuinely seems terrified in her scene with Lenny Kravitz just before "launch" and her reaction to Rue's fate sells the sadness of the moment far more than the event itself. In support Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks are on great form whilst Josh Hutcherson is solid but nothing outstanding.

All in all it's a solid adaption and I'll certainly be keen to see Catching Fire next year. I just can't help but think that The Hunger Games is an incomplete experience.

One of the best aspects that science-fiction can do, is to be a satire of a current worldwide issue, as a way of talking about the present, rather than the future. As Stephen King has shown us in his Richard Bachman-authored The Running Man, the killing of others can be gold for televised entertainment. This very premise has been reflected upon later works, including the much-hyped adaptation of Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games, which has been advertised as the next Twilight. Whilst it does attract a similar core audience, the comparison to Stephenie Meyer's vampiric series is highly inaccurate.

In the dystopian futuristic nation of Panem, the Capitol selects a boy and girl from each of its twelve districts to fight to the death on live television. On the 74th Hunger Games, the participants from District 12 are Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to save her younger sister's life, and the baker's son Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). Twenty-four tributes are against each other, but who shall be the victor?

Since the book's publication, many have compared it to the Japanese cult classic Battle Royale, which was about a class of students being forced to kill each other, as a way for the parents to control their children. Although Kinji Fukasaku's film has a more sadistic tone to satisfy horror fans, The Hunger Games is directed towards young adults, with its roots in sci-fi and yet primarily focusing on its young contestants who are fighting one another.

Like the book (of which its author has co-adapted), the story is told in a first-person narrative through Katniss as we witness the world through her eyes, and yet there are additional sequences to expand the screen-time of subsequent characters, mostly on the villain front. Prior to the film's release, there was speculation about how faithful the film will be towards the book's tone, in terms of its graphic content. Although the BBFC has cut or substitute seven seconds of film in order gain a 12A rating, the film indeed has its unsettling moments as once the Games start, the characters will show no remorse and blood will be shed. For fans of the book, the most moving sequence involving Katniss and Rue (sweetly played by Amandla Stenberg) is perfectly played here.

Despite the spectacular futuristic architecture of Panem, consisting of the most ridiculously-looking citizens dressed in vivid colours, director Gary Ross grounds the movie in such a very realistic fashion, that it almost feels an art film. Although Ross doesn't quite have the chops of being an action director, as well as overplaying the "shaky-cam" effect, it is a great device when it comes to the death scenes and does indeed support the grittiness of Katniss' hellish journey.

Years after her breakthrough performance in the Sundance hit Winter's Bone, one can say that Jennifer Lawrence here is playing Ree Dolly 2.0. Lawrence is the heart of the film as she ain't no damsel in distress but as a strong female heroine against a tough challenge. Heroines don't have to wear skintight clothing or indeed show cleavage to indicate their strength (*ahem* Sucker Punch). As for the two male leads, there isn't much time to fully establish Liam Hemsworth as Katniss's best friend Gale, while Josh Hutcherson is trying his best as Peeta, which is a difficult role because you're wondering if he's mischievous or sympathetic.

As for the supporting characters who are based at the Capitol, actors like Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks are in full make-up and clearly having fun in their comic turns; even Lenny Kravitz is convincing as Katniss' stylist with a heart of gold. Although Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones who play the Games comic commentators do indeed play it straight, but they do interfere with the intensity of the story.

Whilst it's not the masterpiece to rival with Battle Royale, fans of Suzanne Collins' novel will not be disappointed with Gary Ross' thrilling and terrifying adaptation. Happy Hunger Games and roll on the next instalment: Catching Fire!

It certainly relies on a very interesting (and political) premise of extreme social inequality. That narrative is a very interesting one as well as relevant. It is generally well acted and directed, but I expected the killing scenes to have been more powerful. I am also quite reserved regarding the love story in the film.

I am yet to see the film, I've held up because I was curious about the hype and decided I'd rather read the books first. I finished the first one last night and I have to say it was refreshing. I'm so happy that a teen book with actual substance has been made into a film with half decent reviews. It's sad that people actual bitch about it though.

Yes, it's a 12A. Mainly because of what people have said before - the target audience. But just because it isn't blood, blood and more blood doesn't mean it's going to be terrible? Besides in my opinion that's not the main focus of the story, it's more to do with the conflict the character, Katniss, faces. Sure killing people is apart from that but the book is about basic survival, something I think most humans these days don't have a clue about!

Also, I've looked up Battle Royale and yes they are very similar but a lot of things are so don't shun this away for it, right? I mean Orcs were invented by Tolkein in Lord of the Rings and have since then been used in a majority of different things. It's just the way the film industry works - 7 basic plots adapted into stories.

As for the Twilight crowd? Who even cares what they think, whether they watch it or not. At the end of the day people who are absorbed into that absolute trash are not even worth listening to the opinion of - good or bad. Why? Because they're just mindless sheep following this latest hype to stay "cool".

Oh, and if you say Twilight is "quite good" then I'm sorry your opinion just because invalid to me. Sparkling vampires, why oh why.

_____________________________

"The brave may not live forever, but the cautious do not live at all."

If I peed my pants would you pretend that I just got wet from the rain?

This segment is about the 2012 movie “Hunger games” directed by Gary Ross starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth banks, Liam Hemsworth.This movie is based upon a novel and it belongs to the sci-fi genre. This movie seems to be in the same line of movies l"Condemned" , "live or die" where the participants have to kill each other until one emerges as winner.

Personally I did not like this movie but some may like it as everyone has their own movie taste. This movie was a soft and sensible version of the movie "Condemned" (which was raw &amp; violent).

The plot is like since the great war has killed people and civilization vanished-peace was brought in group of districts by paying tribute (sending one man and one woman) every year to the hunger games held at the capitol.24 participant will kill each other until one emerges as a winner.

The total event will be telecasted on television. This maintains the peace in the districts as it is a reminder to the great war.Katniss (played by Jennifer Lawrence) is bold woman ; good in bow hunting. In the tribute selection parade presented by Effie (Elizabeth banks), she volunteers in place of her sister.Peeta was selected as tribute from the man side.

Katniss and Peeta set to capitol in train with Elizabeth banks and a mentor who trains them. Their mentor tells them that they have to impress the audience as they get killed in the Game Zone(lush green forest) more of hunger and disease than by other participants. With the help of others, both peeta and katniss impress the audience. Peeta and Katniss impress the audience as lovers till the end of the movie. Finally they were let in the forest and Katniss fight the odds (animals, hunger and worst forest condition) with the help of sponsors. Whether Katniss survives or not make the end of the story.

Jennifer Lawrence has been given an important role as she fills the screen most of the movie time and she has p

Move over Potter and Bella here comes the new book for young adults/teens, and its quite violent!.

I'm not gonna go into the plot for this adaptation as it really is unbelievably unoriginal. This is my issue with this film (and book), the plot is dated, old, done many many many times, so why is this so hyped I ask?

First thing that does hit you is the fact the film spends a lot of time building the characters. Right from the start everybody is slowly developed so by the time the two leads reach 'the capital' you feel like you know them. This is good obviously and a real plus point for the film, to be honest I wondered if we were ever gonna get to the action, half the film is plot/character development.

The film is also made well despite not having a great deal of fancy effects or massive action moments. Its quite low key with average sets, a touch of CGI for the capital and interesting costume designs. In short it looks realistic when it needs to be and not some over blown post apocalyptic mega blockbuster mess.

As said there is one main problem with the whole adaptation (and book) and that's the plot. We've seen this all before, sure its well acted and made for genuine emotional punch but how many times have you seen a film about a sterile Orwellian authoritarian society that uses bloodsports as the main outlet for its violence lusting population?? . There are so many other films and stories that have used this concept I simply don't understand why this is being talked about so much, because its for teens?.

So much isn't explained either. What happened to the Earth to cause this apocalyptic world? is the rest of world like this? why is the high society in 'the capital' all dressed up like cast from 'The Wizard of Oz' or some French opera? how did these districts get created?. Seeing as there are quite a lot of districts with what appears to be big populations surely it wouldn't be too hard to stand up to one city, they start riots easily enough within the film which cause problems. On the other hand why do the youngsters even compete? if no one complied and refused to kill within the games they couldn't carry on with them no?

The fact that almost all the young combatants in the games are not really introduced seemed a bit poor to me. We know about seven of them (briefly) out of 24, the rest are just faceless kill fodder. Loads of them get killed the minute they enter the games, then during many more get killed off so it does seem like there are maybe more than 24.

Maybe these things are explained in the book, maybe some of it has been altered for the film, I don't know but it does seem rather weak to me. Overall I did enjoy the film as these types of 'rebellion against a big brother society' films are normally intriguing and emotional.

Its well acted and well presented, but everything from the exposure of the young combatants by a slimy gameshow host type to the games being monitored by a control room of suits and techs is completely cliched, predictable and most of all unoriginal. A little too late for me in all honesty, this has been done and offers nothing new accept the fact youngsters compete. A controlled gameshow environmental variation of 'Lord of the Flies' if you will.

Lawrence absolutely nails this. After simmering performances in Winter's Bone and XMen, I Iook forwards to seeing more and more from her. The movie is gorgeously made, although the plot is a little unbelievable, (12 Districts of oppressed people should have a platoon or two of freedom fighters, sorry, "terrorists", to show the fops what's what by now!) Where Battle Royale lampoons the violence, Games takes a more serious view on the hunting and slaying. I found myself genuinely caring for those worthy of concern. All in all, a well made enterprise. Is there a sequel where she leads an army into Valhalla to kick the Gods off their thrones? Well there needs to be.

Perhaps as disjointed as Battle Royale, its nevertheless thrilling and authentic. The Hunger Games has an incredible cast working with a marvelous script that opens a brutal, but intelligent and creative world to the big screen. Maybe this is the new "Harry Potter".

Just watched this and found it to be very disapointing. The future concept feels like fake movie pagentry and the fop fashion of the city dwellers is utterly ludicrous. The production values are squandered by Tom Sterns bland and unimaginitive cinematography. It's not as intelligent as it thinks it is either but a good performance from Lawrence gives the film respectability and watchabilty. The whole film is just dull and there are only a few suspence moments to grab you. So much has been lifted out of other much better movies. Only watch it if you're desperate or have a crush on any of the ex-disney tv cast members.

This was a film I was really looking foward to watch, but in some aspects it let me down, they could of gone into more deapth of the characters in the feature, they could of made the actual 'games' a lot more entertaining, by introducing more characters and enemies or simply by not killing of half the cast straight of the bat. The ending completly shocked me, they didn't put thought into the ending at all, they should of made the two main characters break find a glitch in the 'game' and escape and join forces with the character from district 1 and destroyed the hunger games or caused a riot like district 11, thus extending the film by quit abit as they would have loads to work from by them escaping, they could get caught and placed into a prison as such and then the boy from district 12 (black hair from the start) could make his way to free them, hopefully they make a number 2 and have that a lot longer than the first, films are meant to be better than the books, this was not one of those cases. Saying that I thouroghly enjoyed the feature, would highly recomend, many thanks and happy viewing.

This was a film I was really looking foward to watch, but in some aspects it let me down, they could of gone into more deapth of the characters in the feature, they could of made the actual 'games' a lot more entertaining, by introducing more characters and enemies or simply by not killing of half the cast straight of the bat. The ending completly shocked me, they didn't put thought into the ending at all, they should of made the two main characters break find a glitch in the 'game' and escape and join forces with the character from district 1 and destroyed the hunger games or caused a riot like district 11, thus extending the film by quit abit as they would have loads to work from by them escaping, they could get caught and placed into a prison as such and then the boy from district 12 (black hair from the start) could make his way to free them, hopefully they make a number 2 and have that a lot longer than the first, films are meant to be better than the books, this was not one of those cases. Saying that I thouroghly enjoyed the feature, would highly recomend, many thanks and happy viewing.

The Hunger Games would be much more enjoyable if it was a throwaway American pulp piece. Not bad enough to be laughable and not good enough to be taken seriously. Competent in comparison to the Twilight Saga

A powerful adventure that's as honest and effective as it is thrilling. Not to mention that it's one of the most promising first entries in a film adaptation of a book series since The Fellowship Of The Ring.

Just watched this for the first time - went in with no real expectations but it was not for me. At all. Unbelievable load of crap with zero logic and zero emotional involvement, despite the fucking subject matter! I'm obviously not the target audience, but even teen/kids films need to make a certain amount of sense. This does so many wrong things in trying to create its world and tell such a story that it just became humourous after a while. It also dragged on for an eternity because of it's failure to engage this viewer. Embarrassing, and I don't even want to know why folk like it or why I'm "wrong". I just don't care.

Anyone who’s seen Kinji Fukasaku’s far superior BATTLE ROYALE will already know what this particular film is all about - watered down, kiddie friendly Hollywood mush about a bunch of teenagers condemned to fight each other to the death. Trouble is, the all too familiar dystopian future presented here never really fully convinces. After we’ve been introduced to the handsome looking tween friendly twenty-something cast, Gary Ross’ film then seems to drag on for what seems like an eternity before we finally get to the real meat of the thing and when it comes, the action is competently staged if a little bit illogical. They all have to kill each other by the end right? So why waste time forming alliances? There were barely a dozen of them to begin with as far as I could see and trying to make friends in that situation wouldn’t help. And why waste precious supplies and resources on a group of people most of whom are already classified as dead meat anyway? And where did those obviously fake looking CGI mutated dogs come from? A convenient plot device to place our heroes in peril no doubt. And why don’t the poor majority simply organise themselves into armies and overthrow the minority rich elite? And were we in any real doubt that our spirited “heroine” Katniss Everdeen would survive till the end? There’s another two more books in the pipeline which – in a way - kind of defeats the entire purpose of watching this film in the first place!!! Hunger Games entertains up to a point ( if you’re in a not very demanding mood ) - but I'd rather watch.... SERIES 7 – THE CONTENDERS, THE RUNNING MAN. STAR TREK (the Arena episode) etc, etc…….TWO STARS…..

Loved this move, struck me as a 'mash up' of The Running Man and Robin Hood...Robin is still trying to feed the poor, only this time Robin's a female. I honestly didn't have any complaints the plot, action and acting were all enjoyable and i'd easily watch this again...and again. Highly Recommended.